Color problem with new Stylus 3800

[Crying Saul]

My thanks to all those here who helped me make the right choice and buy a Stylus Pro 3800. The small beast arrived yesterday and I'm having some problems with color output, mainly the prints being much darker than expected.

I've been using Spyder 3 Elite for several months now to calibrate the LCD screen of my 20" iMac. I've recalibrated just before doing my first test prints. I received a box of Super A3 Premium Luster Photo Paper (S041785) with the 3800, but I couldn't find such a paper in the printer's driver settings. I had to fall back on "Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster", which was the closest one I could find. I'm not sure this is the reason for the dark prints, though.

I've tried printing both from PS CS4 and from Lightroom (on Leopard 10.5., using Printer Manages Colors every time. Two color prints were made with the default settings, and one B&W print with the ABW mode of the driver. Colors were almost spot on, however both color and B&W prints were much darker than what was on my screen. Histograms for all three files were nicely spread out, no blown highlights or crushed blacks. I just don't understand what's wrong.

When in PS CS4, I tried Soft Proof and chose the PLPP profile. The Soft Proof seemed to simulate correctly the printed output, since the result (on the screen) was also much darker. However, I'm not sure it's dependable since the colors were somewhat off.

Any ideas would be much welcome. I'm a little but underwhelmed by what many people described as a "fire and forget" printer when the default settings are used with a calibrated display. I don't mind messing with settings, on the contrary, but there are quite a few parameters involved and I'd like to waste as little ink as possible when testing.

Thanks.

[jmwscot]

[quote name='Crying Saul' date='Nov 4 2009, 08:51 AM' post='322399']
My thanks to all those here who helped me make the right choice and buy a Stylus Pro 3800. The small beast arrived yesterday and I'm having some problems with color output, mainly the prints being much darker than expected.

Rather than give you a condensed description of what to do, Eric Chan's excellent site will give you all the info on setting up the printer with CS4, Lightroom and Leopard. Here's the link to his site: Epson Stylus Pro 3800 Printer Notes

Hope this helps,

John

[dgberg]

In Lightroom print module under color management you do not want managed by printer. You want to choose the icc profile Pro38PPLP. Then make sure you select
Off No Color Management in the printer settings The 2 papers you mentioned are the same.  Of my 3 printers the 3800 has given me 0 problems in 2+ years.
Yes,Eric's read is a must!

[Crying Saul]

I was aware of Chan's FAQ but somehow missed the step-by-step workflow, which I will be testing this evening. One thing, though : the Spyder 3 apparently doesn't have a setting called cd/m2 (presumably candelas). All it asks are white temperature and gamma (which I set to 1.8 since I'm on Leopard). Even in the "Advanced Mode" of the Spyder, I couldn't find anything related to candelas. I think this might be related since my problem is one of luminosity (or rather lack thereof). Any ideas ?

[jerryrock]

I was aware of Chan's FAQ but somehow missed the step-by-step workflow, which I will be testing this evening. One thing, though : the Spyder 3 apparently doesn't have a setting called cd/m2 (presumably candelas). All it asks are white temperature and gamma (which I set to 1.8 since I'm on Leopard). Even in the "Advanced Mode" of the Spyder, I couldn't find anything related to candelas. I think this might be related since my problem is one of luminosity (or rather lack thereof). Any ideas ?

Your basic problem is calibrating to a gamma of 1.8. Recalibrate using 2.2 which is the accepted standard. The brightness setting (backlight) of your iMac can be controlled manually and the DataColor software does measure this control during calibration.

[Crying Saul]

I'll try recalibrating at 2.2, but from everything I've read it seems that 2.2 is the accepted standard for Windows, whereas Mac's standard is 1.8 (this has changed with Snow Leopard apparently, but I'm not using that).

I could, of course, reduce the backlight of the Mac's screen with the OS controls (brightness + & -) until it looks like my printed page, but that hardly seems like a precise workflow. Spyder's utility doesn't say anything about that control (not even "set your brightness to maximum" or something to that effect).

I will be doing all of these checks this evening and report back

Thanks a lot to everyone.

[francois]

I'll try recalibrating at 2.2, but from everything I've read it seems that 2.2 is the accepted standard for Windows, whereas Mac's standard is 1.8 (this has changed with Snow Leopard apparently, but I'm not using that).
…

This is old stuff! Jerry is right, use a gamma of 2.2 and native white point.

[Wayne Fox]

I could, of course, reduce the backlight of the Mac's screen with the OS controls (brightness + & -) until it looks like my printed page, but that hardly seems like a precise workflow.

Actually this is precisely what you have to do.  You have to match the brightness of the screen so it matches the viewed print under a consistent and decent quality light source.

If you do not have an appropriate viewing condition it will be challenging to match ... what are you matching to?  To match the densities of the display and the print, you can use more light on the print, you can dim the display, or you can do a combination of the two.

Typically for a good match a display will be at 50% or less of it's maximum brightness.  Some iMacs actually can't reach a low enough level of brightness for a decent density match.  Typically screen brightness will be in the 100-120 cd/m2 range.

The best way to do this is place a piece of unprinted paper in the viewing station, open a blank white document in photoshop, and adjust the viewing light (if possible) and the screen brightness until they appear similar in brightness.

[sakharov]

This is old stuff! Jerry is right, use a gamma of 2.2 and native white point.

Well, gamma is more important for non icc-aware application. Photoshop, for example, use monitor icc profile (not gamma) for display your image.

[Crying Saul]

OK, like I said I will be trying different things this evening, but one thing is already certain: there is NO way I can turn the LCD's brightness low enough to match the perceived brightness of a white sheet of paper held next to it. I've dialed the iMac to the lowest setting, and it's still brighter than the paper. I don't if there are other iMac users around who managed to find a solution to this. Things aren't made easier by the fact that I'm working under tungsten light at home, which makes the paper definitely yellowish. But I simply can't transform my habitat into a 6500K heaven while still keeping the family around

More later.

UPDATE : In case this helps anyone figure this out, I've recalibrated the iMac monitor with the Spyder device to Gamma 2.2 and followed the testing suggestions on gballard.net with the Adobe reference file. Soft proofing into PLPP makes everything much darker, and the skin tones transform uniformly into the brownish category. I can't even understand how I'm supposed to properly work with my RAW files in Lightroom, which is my main editing environment, when later in PS everything goes out the window as soon as I soft proof. I am perfectly aware that this is a very complex issue, requiring lots of experience and patience which I'm willing to invest, but please understand that I have the 3800 doing nothing right now because I still can't trust it to print something related to what I see on screen (I'm not faulting the printer, I'm just overwhelmed).

[Wayne Fox]

OK, like I said I will be trying different things this evening, but one thing is already certain: there is NO way I can turn the LCD's brightness low enough to match the perceived brightness of a white sheet of paper held next to it. I've dialed the iMac to the lowest setting, and it's still brighter than the paper. I don't if there are other iMac users around who managed to find a solution to this. Things aren't made easier by the fact that I'm working under tungsten light at home, which makes the paper definitely yellowish. But I simply can't transform my habitat into a 6500K heaven while still keeping the family around

More later.

There is little point in trying to "match" a print to a viewing condition which is not consistent and inadequate.  There are some low price alternatives which would be superior to what you describe.  You may want to read this article and then read down through the comments for suggestions.  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...iewing-sta.html

Yes iMacs can be problematic.  I'm not sure any good solution has been found, however, there are several threads about it.  Here is one  

 http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....hl=iMac++bright

If you enter +iMac +Bright into the search function there may be some other threads.

One suggestion from other threads is to verify the problem is with your screen and perceived density, and not related to a workflow problem.  Download a good test print from a reliable source and print it ... here a few

http://digitaldog.net./files/Printer_Test_file.jpg.zip
http://www.outbackprint.com/printinginsigh...i048/essay.html
http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSha...st%20Images.zip

If these look "dark" when printed then either your viewing conditions are woefully inadequate or you have a workflow problem.

[Wayne Fox]

OK, like I said I will be trying different things this evening, but one thing is already certain: there is NO way I can turn the LCD's brightness low enough to match the perceived brightness of a white sheet of paper held next to it. I've dialed the iMac to the lowest setting, and it's still brighter than the paper. I don't if there are other iMac users around who managed to find a solution to this. Things aren't made easier by the fact that I'm working under tungsten light at home, which makes the paper definitely yellowish. But I simply can't transform my habitat into a 6500K heaven while still keeping the family around

More later.

UPDATE : In case this helps anyone figure this out, I've recalibrated the iMac monitor with the Spyder device to Gamma 2.2 and followed the testing suggestions on gballard.net with the Adobe reference file. Soft proofing into PLPP makes everything much darker, and the skin tones transform uniformly into the brownish category. I can't even understand how I'm supposed to properly work with my RAW files in Lightroom, which is my main editing environment, when later in PS everything goes out the window as soon as I soft proof. I am perfectly aware that this is a very complex issue, requiring lots of experience and patience which I'm willing to invest, but please understand that I have the 3800 doing nothing right now because I still can't trust it to print something related to what I see on screen (I'm not faulting the printer, I'm just overwhelmed).

Be sure you are not looking at your display when enabling soft proofing.  Look away for several seconds so you aren't comparing the "before" and "after" subconsciously.  I've heard one or two peole recommend you walk away from your computer for a minute or two as you enable it, so your eye adapts to the soft proof.  I don't do this, not sure if it helps or not.

If you are softproofing with a premium luster paper profile and seeing substantial shifts you may have a problem with workflow or hardware.  Normally this might show a little darkening and a little loss of contrast, but when you say "much" darker that indicates perhaps something else is going on.

If you download the test files I mentioned certainly try softproofing them.

I rarely even bother soft proofing when using luster or exhibition fiber papers .... the prints to screen match is close enough ... probably as good as is possible considering the differences between a backlit screen and a reflective paper print.

[Crying Saul]

Thanks a lot Wayne for the information and the links. I will be trying the test prints tomorrow since it's almost midnight here and I've been on this issue for almost four hours...

I've followed Chan's step-by-step workflow to the letter. Calibrated with the Spyder 3 to 2.2 and 100 candelas instead of 120 (there actually *is* a way to do that with the Spyder, it's called White Luminosity), reduced LCD backlight until 100 cd/m2 were met, checked absolutely everything against Chan's text (which included switching to PS color management instead of the driver's), stared at psychedelic Gamma patterns for 15 minutes from different angles and distances (thanks to Ballard's site again), printed, and guess what: almost exactly the same result, a tiny tad lighter. I'm losing a lot of shadow detail compared to what I see on the monitor.

Next steps: checking out your suggestions with test images, and a trip with my file on a USB key along with my prints down to my Epson retailer, hoping to gain some insights.

Will advise...

[madmanchan]

Quick sanity check is to see if a plain sheet of inkjet paper is roughly the same apparent brightness as a blank white Photoshop document on your display. Make sure you hold the inkjet sheet in roughly the same lighting conditions as you would use to view the print.

If all else fails, try posting some screenshots of your Photoshop Print dialog settings and your Epson driver settings.

[Crying Saul]

I think I'll drop the test images for now, because I found a simpler solution: simply use my 19" consumer Belinea LCD which I've been using for months as a second, uncalibrated monitor. A quick trip to the Spyder 3, Gamma 2.2 at 100 cd/m2. The differences in luminosity between Lightroom and Photoshop have been greatly reduced.

Also, I've got my hands on a box of Epson Traditional Photo Paper. Found the profile for it on the French Epson site. I let PS manage colors, setup everything in the driver according to the PDF accompanying the profile, and the result was pretty amazing: both for color and black & white, I get (almost) what I see on the screen, and can finally print consistently. This is a first step for me, still a lot to learn and experiment, but the combination of a different paper and a different monitor made for a huge improvement.

I'm still reading Eric Chan's notes, as well as others', in order to learn as much as possible. A very big thank you to all the forum members who helped out with suggestions and tips.

All of a sudden, when Apple says their new 27" iMac has a much brighter screen, I don't find that particularily thrilling...

Cheers.

[Wayne Fox]

All of a sudden, when Apple says their new 27" iMac has a much brighter screen, I don't find that particularily thrilling...

Cheers.

I'm using a 27" iMac as a display for my macBook Pro in one location ...personally I think it's pretty good.  It's actually a big improvement, because despite it's 330cd/m2 brightness rating, you can actually dim the display to any point you want.  Some previous models had problems with this.  I'm at 120 cd/m2 and it's great.

The 16:9 proportion is nice ... I like the slight additional width when working with LR and PS.

[Crying Saul]

I was initially surprised at your reply but then I realized that the new 27" iMac can finally serve as a secondary display (i.e. they have a DVI-in port or whatever Apple called their new interface). I supposed this is what you were referring to

[Wayne Fox]

I was initially surprised at your reply but then I realized that the new 27" iMac can finally serve as a secondary display (i.e. they have a DVI-in port or whatever Apple called their new interface). I supposed this is what you were referring to

Yes the video port of the 27" iMac is both a video out for a second monitor, or a video in coming from a second computer.

BTW if you are intrigued by techie stuff, the "new" interface isn't all that new (DisplayPort)  and isn't an Apple technology.  Apple did design a new smaller connector for the technology called a miniDisplayPort connector, but allows anyone to license the use of the connector without royalties.  the connector is AMAZINGLY small for what it delivers. (about 5/16" by 3/16" )

 DisplayPort itself is a VESA standard developed 4 or 5 years ago , which is supposed to have several advantages over DVI and HDMi technologies. Apple is one of the first major adopters, but it appears many others are beging to move in this direction, including computer and display manufacturers as well as home electronics manufacturers in products such as TV's, AV receivers and bluray disk players.  

The advantages are obvious ... a video cable to connect devices that is about the size of a current usb cable.

Apple themselves are very involved in what may be the next generation of interconnectivity with Intel called LightPeak, which if it works as they hope replaces all connectors with a single connector operating at 10Gbps .... very cool stuff.  ONe connector handles all task currently handled by USB/firewire/audio/video.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/intel-u...ect-for-mobile/